Anyone get telework approved at SEC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its interesting that CF, which had the most liberal TW policy in which people were trusted to work remotely for decades, is the only division that has implemented a clear rule that outlines the high bar for telework. Meanwhile other people get weeks off for child care issues (yes, true story!) Glad I'm no longer in CF.

I agree it is odd that we went from having the most liberal to the most restrictive TW policy. You're sort of right on EST for childcare. While no one in CF was able to get it for childcare some people in other divisions were able to get it if their SOs were willing to advocate for it. Unfortunately in CF the SOs were not willing to fight for anyone to get it.

Lost a lot of respect for our acting CF director.

Why? Bc she’s enforcing the FO’s policies? Take it up with the FO. It’s not her fault or problem.

The FO VOLUNTARILY cancelled all TW — nobody made them do it. The EO certainly didn’t.

FWIW she unilaterally came up with the ultra strict ad hoc policy. That was all her and she owns that. Even the managers are angry with her for that.

That’s why I lost respect for her. Definitely CYA to save herself.

Absurd to blame her. It’s not her policy. Why should she stick her neck out in this environment? It’d be so easy for the FO just to go back to the pre 2019 posture. But they opted not to. Not her fault at all.

She wouldn't be sticking her neck out if she did what every other division did. And it is her fault for making our policy stricter than the other divisions.

Really? Ok then — write down what the other offices are “doing,” and make that the Policy. This isn’t hard. Short of that, is she just supposed to trust you about what every other office is “doing”?

It's in the RTO FAQs.

Also, she doesn't need to trust me, she can talk to the acting directors in the other offices and implement a consistent policy.

So you’re saying that she’s violating the current written policy? You should bring that up then.

It’s not up to her to implement a clear, consistent written policy or go coordinate with anyone in doing so. That’s the FO’s job.

There's a policy, she's being more strict than she needs to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe management could still have ad hoc but only for weather-related purposes (e.g., snow day) and emergencies. Otherwise, they could restrict all other telework/ad hoc. Some office at SEC are liberal and allow ad hoc for most reasons now. That can be frustrating if you're stuck in an office that is strict about ad hoc. Some people get to telework 2-3 days a week with the right manager.

No one (without a reasonable accommodation at least) is getting to TW 2-3 days per week, even in liberal offices.

FALSE. I count at least 3 other exceptions besides RA.

Such as?

[Anonymous]

Corp fin folks - yes, we have the worst policy, but our acting director wants to put her best foot forth when meeting the next director. It sucks but it is what it is. Anecdotally, people in corp fin feel really unsupported by our acting director’s decision to make the most restrictive policy after corp fin has demonstrated its ability to remote work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Corp fin folks - yes, we have the worst policy, but our acting director wants to put her best foot forth when meeting the next director. It sucks but it is what it is. Anecdotally, people in corp fin feel really unsupported by our acting director’s decision to make the most restrictive policy after corp fin has demonstrated its ability to remote work.

Hard to believe she’s a working parent. Assumed she’d be a less self-concerned leader.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Corp fin folks - yes, we have the worst policy, but our acting director wants to put her best foot forth when meeting the next director. It sucks but it is what it is. Anecdotally, people in corp fin feel really unsupported by our acting director’s decision to make the most restrictive policy after corp fin has demonstrated its ability to remote work.

She is looking to save her own ass thats for sure.

[Anonymous]

Weird discussion to be having. An agency’s TW policy should be clear, unambiguous, transparent, consistent, and agency wide.

Used to be that way. Sorta ironic that we’ve done a 180 (one would think that an EO would make it MORE consistent/transparent, not less).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe management could still have ad hoc but only for weather-related purposes (e.g., snow day) and emergencies. Otherwise, they could restrict all other telework/ad hoc. Some office at SEC are liberal and allow ad hoc for most reasons now. That can be frustrating if you're stuck in an office that is strict about ad hoc. Some people get to telework 2-3 days a week with the right manager.

No one (without a reasonable accommodation at least) is getting to TW 2-3 days per week, even in liberal offices.

FALSE. I count at least 3 other exceptions besides RA.

Such as?

If you’re an employee, read the FAQs yourself (as you presumably already have). If you’re not, why do you care?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe management could still have ad hoc but only for weather-related purposes (e.g., snow day) and emergencies. Otherwise, they could restrict all other telework/ad hoc. Some office at SEC are liberal and allow ad hoc for most reasons now. That can be frustrating if you're stuck in an office that is strict about ad hoc. Some people get to telework 2-3 days a week with the right manager.

No one (without a reasonable accommodation at least) is getting to TW 2-3 days per week, even in liberal offices.

FALSE. I count at least 3 other exceptions besides RA.

Such as?

If you’re an employee, read the FAQs yourself (as you presumably already have). If you’re not, why do you care?

I’m looking at it now, but there is nothing beyond medical that would allow an employee to work from 2-3 days per week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe management could still have ad hoc but only for weather-related purposes (e.g., snow day) and emergencies. Otherwise, they could restrict all other telework/ad hoc. Some office at SEC are liberal and allow ad hoc for most reasons now. That can be frustrating if you're stuck in an office that is strict about ad hoc. Some people get to telework 2-3 days a week with the right manager.

No one (without a reasonable accommodation at least) is getting to TW 2-3 days per week, even in liberal offices.

FALSE. I count at least 3 other exceptions besides RA.

Such as?

If you’re an employee, read the FAQs yourself (as you presumably already have). If you’re not, why do you care?

I’m looking at it now, but there is nothing beyond medical that would allow an employee to work from 2-3 days per week.

Not the PP but there are two kinds of EST (medical, including medical for family and non-medical). I think there are a few other situations where TW could but is unlikely to be granted.

[Anonymous]

Changing topic slightly… but its one thing to get the benefit of wfh with no raises for the next three years… But commuting plus no raises plus inflation is making me question how long I can last.

[Anonymous]

The previous poster asserted that “Divisions can make up their own ad hoc policy.” Is that true? Then why not just revert back to 2024?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The previous poster asserted that “Divisions can make up their own ad hoc policy.” Is that true? Then why not just revert back to 2024?

They can be stricter because there is no effective mechanism to grieve it in much the same way the regular TW provision is being violated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel super embarrassed for Cicely LaMothe, the Acting Director in CF to be honest. She evidently decided to implement the most aggressively restrictive ad hoc policy of ALL divisions within the SEC...in order to impress who exactly? Oh right, the next baby-faced Trump appointee of the SEC in Corp Fin? CF was FULLY REMOTE as of a few weeks ago - why on earth would Cicely want to implement the most restrictive ad hoc policy across the entire SEC...other than to impress the next baby faced director (who is rumored to be a 37 year old?) Cicely devised a McKinsean policy that effectively prevents anyone from ad hoc absent an emergency that coincides with an emergency deadline. She realizes that now that we are RTO, Corp Fin staff interacts with staff in other divisions and will learn that all of the other offices have normal and respectful ad hoc policies, right?! Cicely could have set forth a REASONABLE policy, one that respects CF staff's DECADES of executing deadlines remotely, consistent with all of the other divisions within the SEC with acting directors implementing moderate policies. But nope, Cicely wanted to have the MOST restrictive policy in all of the SEC for a division that used to be fully remote in order to impress the new baby-faced boy director. Super embarrassing for Corp Fin all around. Anyone saying she is "owning it" has no idea what is going on or doesn't actually work at the SEC. Cicely claimed that Corp Fin ad hoc's restrictive policy was COMING FROM SEC Senior leadership! It was only after attending the union meeting, and CF staff interacting with senior level management in other divisions, that it was clear CF leadership (Cicely!) made that up. At least own up to it. There is no SEC management rule that created Corp Fin's restrictive policy. Divisions can make up their own ad hoc policy. Cicely implemented this restrictive policy, but made it seem like it was coming from SEC management. We need an actual LEADER in Corp Fin that respects our decades of working remotely. Corp Fin having the most restrictive ad hoc policy within the SEC shows Cicely's contempt for Staff. CF staff is fed up with her lack of leadership. Instead of sticking up for CF staff, Cicely has shown cowardice in order to advance her own career... at the expense of CF staff. A career reputation is a long time, spanning decades. Hope its worth it for Cicely that she would so embarrassingly COWER to Trump appointees in a way that no other Director did. Real leadership and bravery there!

Or, maybe it is meant to demonstrate how stupidly ineffective RTO is when people have to take so much time off and the absentee rate skyrockets. It’s not a bad thing to have data to back up this point.

Don’t get me wrong. I hate RTO as much as the next guy and I think this is the dumbest thing ever. But I’m also happy to show that it severely impacts productivity.

Would add that it’s ironic a working mom is screwing working parents.

[Anonymous]

Crazy idea: have a clear, consistent policy that applies to the entire agency, which managers are obliged to follow.

Sidenote: must be hell to be a manager now. Can’t imagine dealing with all this crap. Why does anyone do it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Crazy idea: have a clear, consistent policy that applies to the entire agency, which managers are obliged to follow.

Sidenote: must be hell to be a manager now. Can’t imagine dealing with all this crap. Why does anyone do it?

That’s the problem with a silly unnecessary policy. All of this was done unnecessarily across the government so it’s even more challenging to implement and enforce something that makes so little sense.